The NY production is good although a bit uneven. Danielle Lenee's character in particular is moving and nuanced. Readers, this is a drama not based on a true story. Please see the play before commenting on it. For those interested in race relations in America this play could be worth a few hours of your time.
1
This doesn't mirror any experience I have had on a NYC bus in 40+ years of living here. On the contrary, I have seen some awful fights and aggressive behavior from the "unimpeachable" demographic the New York Times will never have as a readership and doesn't want.
I'm not entirely sure which demographic you're exactly going on about, but generalizing huge swaths of populations is always a problem & specious at best. You might want to get to know some individuals in this "demographic" on a personal basis before making such obtuse grandiosities.
3
More of this? Is every theater experience, especially those lauded by the NYT, one about race? That, too, not every race issue, but blacks in some way oppressed by whites. This is getting tedious.
1
Then don't see the play. Then again, it might be exactly for you.
9
Unfortunately, despite it's ambitions, I found this relatively implausible and lacking in dimension. Characters seem more-or-less mouthpieces for the playwright’s perspective on racial divide, and the conversations are surface and forced. If you're alive and your eyes are open, you have a sense that race will be an issue in this world until the sun scorches the earth and, for that reason (among others), it will continue to be a palpable subject for theatre, film, et al - but, in this case, I felt the subject could have been illuminated better with more nuanced characters, and better plot structure.
1
Unless I am mistaken, many playwrights have a point of view to get across in their play, some more subtle than others, some completely ambiguous.
To diss a play because it addresses the playwright's observations on a subject, seems akin to deciding there is no God because Carl Sagan said so.
As for the sense that 'race will be an issue until the sun scorches the earth' sounds like DD's perspective on race, which is rather dismal.
MY perspective, at 70, is that race will NOT be a factor in 200 years, unless people - specifically the ones who need most to be talking about it (that would be White America) - refuse to discuss it. You can't learn without asking questions, which might be why the playwright hammers the point home about condescension, which goes hand in hand with "well-meaning" and also the word "liberal," which implies a sense of noblesse oblige, a gift bestowed upon those "'less fortunate' than 'us'."
As long as a play makes people reflect, its job is done. It is only those who mutter to themselves, while leaving, 'Ok, this takes care of seeing a play on race relations this year. Now for a Black movie and I'm all done!"
To diss a play because it addresses the playwright's observations on a subject, seems akin to deciding there is no God because Carl Sagan said so.
As for the sense that 'race will be an issue until the sun scorches the earth' sounds like DD's perspective on race, which is rather dismal.
MY perspective, at 70, is that race will NOT be a factor in 200 years, unless people - specifically the ones who need most to be talking about it (that would be White America) - refuse to discuss it. You can't learn without asking questions, which might be why the playwright hammers the point home about condescension, which goes hand in hand with "well-meaning" and also the word "liberal," which implies a sense of noblesse oblige, a gift bestowed upon those "'less fortunate' than 'us'."
As long as a play makes people reflect, its job is done. It is only those who mutter to themselves, while leaving, 'Ok, this takes care of seeing a play on race relations this year. Now for a Black movie and I'm all done!"
5
Saw the play in LA where the acting was very uneven. More ominous for NY theater-goers is the fact that the play itself is, for its courage in dealing with "issues," still more of a polemic than a realistic slice of life across the racial/economic divide. No problem that, of course, unless the explosive scenes don't really seem logically ignited. And they really aren't here. Yes, the ending is unexpected, but it doesn't feel germane to the rest of the story, though it jibes with the position the playwright has established. The production in LA was most in need of a good dramaturge.
Praise for a New York theatre booker who had the temerity to lower herself to find an important play from a non-glam regional company. The success of any new playwright creates opportunity for others. Presenting works by the same old names is boring and lazy.
13
I saw the play in LA and loved it-stark, brutal, honest realism in a finely textured play. It's not easy on it's audience, because it is so raw. But it is exciting and confrontational, and a must see for any serious theatre goer.
5
The NYT didn't write the play.
How about examining the dynamic between low income blacks and low income whites? Or how about low income whites with economically comfortable whites? NYT, your dynamic is too limited.
4
This is a review about a play which chooses to examine what it chooses to examine. The NY Times didn't commission the subject matter or the nature and background of the characters, so I'm not sure how you feel the paper should expand their dynamic by irrelevantly addressing interactions between populations that have nothing to do with the play.
5
the nyt didn't right the play.
4
I'm sure those plays have been written, this doesn't happen to be one of them.
If every play or book incorporated every angle of a subject, It would be like trying to capture the entire internet in one sitting! This was an honest and raw portrayal about an aspect of what goes on in real life.
If every play or book incorporated every angle of a subject, It would be like trying to capture the entire internet in one sitting! This was an honest and raw portrayal about an aspect of what goes on in real life.
6
I wonder if members of the Times' leadership would be surprised by the many comments by members of the Times' readership below that the Times' critics are driven by a political agenda.
Although the Times' news and editorial sections receive many more such accusations, I find the film and theater critics are more uniform in their points of view and more likely to filter productions through their political filters than the news writers are.
I think racial relations are an important cultural topic, but critics need to be separate those shows which mirror their views and are have other merits from those which simply tell the audience what the critic wants them to hear.